SSPX formally expelled Bp. Williamson

Bishop Richard Williamson, having distanced himself from the management and the government of the SSPX for several years, and refusing to show due respect and obedience to his lawful superiors, was declared excluded from the SSPX by decision of the Superior General and its Council, on October 4th, 2012. A final deadline had been granted to him to declare his submission, after which he announced the publication of an “open letter” asking the Superior General to resign.

This painful decision has become necessary by concern for the common good of the Society of Saint Pius X and its good government, according to what Archbishop Lefebvre denounced: “This is the destruction of authority. How authority can be exercised if it needs to ask all members to participate in the exercise of authority? “(Ecône, June 29, 1987)

‘Refusing to show due respect and obedience to his lawful superiors.’ What a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Has it not occurred to ‘his lawful superiors’ that they refuse to show respect and obedience to their lawful Superior, His Holiness Pope Benedict? I believe Bishop Williamson was reprimanded for administering ‘unauthorised’ confirmations somewhere in South America recently. And these same reprimanders think nothing of going into other bishops’ diocese without their approval and administer not only confirmations but also ordinations to the diaconate and priesthood. They and the priests of the Society routinely hear confessions, and except in danger of death, give absolution invalidly. And don’t let any commentators try to take refuge in ‘ecclesia supplet.’ In these cases She does not, most decidedly. [And moreover ‘common error’ does not apply either]. I am a canon lawyer and I know that to be the case and I will not be drawn into an argument about it. I know what I am talking about.

However, every cloud has a silver lining, maybe now Bishop Williamson is free to start his own schismatic sect, he may draw those of the SSPX who think that reconciliation with the Church is tantamount to supping with the devil. So perhaps his erstwhile ‘lawful superior’ will find a way to practice what he preaches and submit the SSPX to the authority of their lawful Superior, yes, Pope Benedict XVI.

High Mass,

I agree wholeheartedly. Time for all groups and factions ow obedience to show obedience to their lawful superiors, especially the Pope and Bishops in union with him.

While it’s tempting to declare this an ironic development of the “kettle calling black” sort, that is too simplistic a reaction in my opinion. Bishop Williamson’s actions towards the SSPX were well beyond resistance to perceived unjust governance; they were acrimonious assaults on the very life of the society. While I can’t defend the SSPX’s continued resistance to complete submission to the Holy Father, they are very far from the sort of rabble-rousing that Williamson was expelled for. There is still very much hope for final reconciliation for the SSPX, in my view; very little for Williamson.

Canon 700 – A decree of dismissal has no effect unless it is confirmed by the Holy See, to whom the decree and all the acts are to be forwarded. If the matter concerns an institute of diocesan right, the confirmation belongs to the Bishop in whose diocese is located the house to which the religious belongs. For validity the decree must indicate the right of the person dismissed to have recourse to the competent authority within ten days of receiving notification of the decree. The recourse has a suspensive effect.

I don’t understand the snarkiness. Is it not good that the Society of St. Pius X is “cleaning” its own house? And, as Thom points out, it’s not that Bishop Williamson objects or has concerns, but that he is calling for an overthrow of his superiors, that he opposes, in principle, discussion with Rome until Rome converts (whatever that possibly means), etc.

But beyond that, I’m sure that this event is confusing for some of our brothers and sisters who frequent the chapels of the SSPX. I don’t think we should use it as an opportunity to kick them around.

Despite Bp. Williamson’s popularity, I doubt whatever he does at this point will last beyond his…well, I hate to say it, but he is kind of old. I think that he will probably take some followers with him from the SSPX, and start some new society, but that society will probably fizzle out after he is no longer with us.

Oh boy, here comes yet another (possible) schismatic sect of the Catholic Church (as if we didn’t have enough of those already). On the other hand, I am glad that this has been done so that the SSPX can move closer to reunification with Rome. I am surprised that along with expulsion, Bishop Fellay has not asked the Pope for an official notice of Bishop Williamson being defrocked as a bishop.

Tim Ferguson,
‘I wonder if Bishop Williamson will appeal, and if so, to whom?’ Neat point! That is one of the difficulties of separating oneself from the Pope – who does one appeal to? I don’t suppose he would consider appealing to anyone – in his own mind he is the one who is in the right. Everyone, and I think he believes everyone else is wrong unless they happen to agree with him.

When the Bishops were lawfully excommunicated latae sententiae and then this penalty was subsequently declared, they just dismissed that and went their merry way. For years an ocean of ink was spilt trying to justify their belief they were not actually excommunicated, but in vain, the fact remains that they were until the Pope lifted the excommunications. If Bishop Williamson does in fact ordain another Bishop to carry on his new schism, [and what choice does he have?] then he will be excommunicated again latae sententiae; it has happened before in the history of the Church.

It is basically well known that the SSPX, which once was a canonically established pious union under 1917 canon law basically considers its dissolution not to have taken place. Now that view may very well be questioned, especially given that the Pope in an official letter confirmed the dissolution. But that’s that, and – frankly – I do not see the point in ridiculing this assumption whenever the SSPX acts upon what they never cease to assume.

Given this assumption, there is such thing as a Superior General, and – again given the assumption – the Superior General has the authority of a superior general.

@Father K: “They and the priests of the Society routinely hear confessions, and except in danger of death, give absolution invalidly.” This is the worst thing they do – people may go to hell, thinking they have a chance of going to heaven (or pugatory). Terrible and sad. Would you mind expanding a little on the rest of that paragraph about why ecclesia *non* supplet and why common error doesn’t apply? I’m just interested, not trying to get you into any arguments about it at all. On the contrary, I might need good ammo when discussing with certain people over coffee on sunday… Thanks.

“This painful decision has become necessary …” It is indeed painful. I don’t see any victory or irony in this. Gloating serves no purpose. While I hope that this move brings the SSPX closer to achieving valid canonical status, in itself the fact that Bp. Williamson pushed things to this point is a tragedy. Besides a bishop of the Church now being that much further from obedience to the Church, from what I also understand he has a very strong and dedicated personal following (which is never a good thing in itself.) There are souls at stake here – souls who are following this man down the “vias inferum.” This is a painful tragedy.

I do pray that good will come of it and the SSPX will be closer to achieving canonical status.

Bp. Williamson may simply continue as is for the moment. He will gather a group about himself who will continue to call themselves the society of st. Pius X. Only that he (williamson) and not Bp. F. Will be at the helm. Fr. K I have a question. If the society has no juridical personhood how is it that in the eyes of the roman authorities one may fulfill their Sunday obligation in one of their chapels and not at an independent chapel?

Much more hinges on the reconciliation of SSPX than the minutiae of their dissent. A way has to be found. This latest development will help. Williamson has been a poisonous influence and a major stumbling block to recent proceedings with the Vatican. Little more will be heard of him in the long run. He has utterly burned his boats: some will follow him into oblivion no doubt.

The Vatican is well-informed /wily enough to have anticipated the split within SSPX. Perhaps this is what it was waiting for. At any rate I should most surprised if one side or the other did not seek to resume negotiations soon and the chances of them now succeeding are much improved, Deo Gratias. If anyone can achieve reconciliation, it is certainly this Pope.

Perhaps Williamson will just refuse to accept the legitimacy of this expulsion. I mean–if you can refuse to accept the legitimacy of an excommunication by the pope, then you can surely do the same for an expulsion from a canonically irregular priestly fraternity.

I’ve wondered for some time if the idea wasn’t to try to keep Bishop Williamson “inside,” because he can cause less mischief than if he is cut loose. That would explain why he wasn’t cut loose sooner. Now we’ll see.

One Irony is now it seems easier for Bp. Williamson to reconcile with Rome, notwithstanding his opinions on various things, including Rome itself. But now he is not tied to the Society and preserving its ability to fulfill its goals. He can act independently and regularize his orders.

As to whether that’ll happen, that’s another story which we’ll find out soon.

As an aside: “one may fulfill their Sunday obligation in one of their chapels”

This understanding must be taken in context of the whole law. In emergency situations, yes, we can fulfill Holy Day obligations, and receive certain Sacraments, at the point of death for instance. For instance, if I’m in Russia and have no other access to Mass, I can receive Communion from an Orthodox.
Unfortunately, repeating this behavior, attendance, belonging to the group, day in and day out, does not constitute an emergency. Continually behaving this way creates the schismatic mindset – that is the danger. [Yes I recognize that many are in a terrible location where the worst of Church practices must be endured, but in this case ’emergency’ becomes a subjective definition as an excuse to go elsewhere – I do sympathize!! And egad, why don’t liberal abuses get more attention and clarification? ]

By taking this ’emergency’ as an excuse for adhering to the SSPX, how is this behavior not unlike the liberals who insist on lay distribution of Holy Communion because, it seems, every day is an ’emergency’ and thus allowed. There are many examples of stretching these allowances and creating a rule from an exception.

Thus, getting back to the mainstream comments here, the big issue with bringing the SSPX back into the fold has been the consistent disregard for the authority of the Pope, and the visible Church. Because the SSPX leaders and followers have been calling the shots all these years, disregarding the truth about their loss of faculties, and lack of a bishop attached to Rome – most of the SSPXers have developed such a contempt for what they believe the visible Church is – they may never come back.

The splintering off of Williamson is another symptom of the revolutionary mindset that was the basis for the founding of SSPX and the ordination of the four bishops without Rome’s approval.

Perhaps this will be good, and allow the more even-tempered to re-unite with the Church while Williamson and followers continue, sadly, off on their track.

Dear @Tina in Ashburn, whatever be said about the Sunday obligation, but… you do not need an emergency to go there, nor is it in any way sinful to attend any of their Masses, etc. Not only have various dubia been answered this way, it also has an actual reason, namely that they have not been suspended vitandi.

1. Let’s hope that this is the beginning of the reconciliation of the SSPX with the Pope, and a reality check for Williamson. And that he also comes back to the Pope. No time like the present, when it comes to reconciliation.

2. Because at least SSPX priests are known to be really priests, however messy the state of their faculties and obedience to the Church, whereas Fr. Independent might be anybody.

Well, my good friends who are close to Bishop Williamson will not like this thought (at least not at present), but I saw on another blog the comment that recalls Fr. Claude Barthe, who was expelled from the SSPX for sedevacantist views, and who then, in an independent status, evolved over several years back to fully accepting the Holy Father and his magisterium, becoming reconciled with the Church and now a member of the Institute of the Good Shepherd. For Bishop Williamson, as well as for the other “strict observance” fathers like Frs. Chazal and Joseph Pfeiffer, their very independent status may allow them to rethink things in a Rome-ward manner, rather than the reverse, as is so often assumed. We shall see.

Okay, I fully understand that there’s never a bad time to say, “Benedict XVI is the Pope of Christian Unity,” any more than that there could be a bad time to say, “Say the black, do the red” or “Brick by brick.” But really, doesn’t this one have a bit of a non sequitur feel about it? Unless it’s meant to imply that +Williamson’s expulsion was part of the Holy Father’s master plan all along? Odd.

(And as full of charity as I try to be re the SSPX, I can just imagine +Fellay doing a face-palm and thinking, “Oh man, the conservatives are going to have a field day over this one…”)

The SSPX doesn’t deny the authority of the Pope or the Church. They intend to follow it. What we have is a situation where the SSPX believe the Pope is ordering them to obey errors. An authority the Pope and Church does not have over anybody.

Resolving this requires the Pope and Church to show the SSPX that what they believe are errors are not errors snd refute the SSPX. Or if the SSPX are right, then to clarify troublesome language and errors in the Vatican II documents. Or if nobody can decide, then reach a resolved position where the SSPX can operate following only the previous Church Councils and Liturgy independent of Vatican II, which is apparently non-binding depending on who you ask and which documents you refer to…

It has long been my fear that the SSPX will one day soon find need for a new round of episcopal consecrations, setting all talks back to the 1980s again. I fear that this is one large step towards that happening, should Williamson decide to create a “SSPII.V” (as the theoretical order has come to be referred here). Similarly, as someone pointed out, the SSPX just lost a quarter of their leadership. With an order as large and spread out as they are, that will hurt the ability to administer. One hopes they don’t see a need to fill that void…

Imrahil says, “Given this assumption, there is such thing as a Superior General, and – again given the assumption – the Superior General has the authority of a superior general.”

Even given that assumption, if the Superior General has the authority of a superior general – that authority does not extend to dismissing a professed religious without recourse to the Holy See (or to the diocese, in the case of diocesan order). If the SSPX are still a pious union, and still subject to canon law, the Superior General does not have plenipotentiary power.

Indeed; and I was on the point of writing that “however, dear @Tim Ferguson made such a very interesting comment to the effect that…” I left that out because I wanted to keep it short. It opens a bundle of other questions. The SSPX would then, always given the assumption, be an association on diocesan level… under the authority of which diocese? etc.

Interesting.

On the other hand, the SSPX are not *religious* (nor 1917 equivalent) in that sense. We’d have to check out first whether that holds for non-religious too.

What we have is a situation where the SSPX believe the Pope is ordering them to obey errors. An authority the Pope and Church does not have over anybody.

Oh what bitter irony and hypocrisy. The SSPX refusing to obey legitimate authority because it would cause them to follow what they perceive is error. In other words their conscience is telling them that documents like Dignitatis Humanae are in error and that no one has the authority to compel them to act against their conscience. And what do they most object to in DH? Of course the paragraph that states that one cannot be forced to against their conscience. Nope you just can’t make this stuff up!

Tim Ferguson : ‘Canon 700 – A decree of dismissal has no effect unless it is confirmed by the Holy See, to whom the decree and all the acts are to be forwarded. If the matter concerns an institute of diocesan right, the confirmation belongs to the Bishop in whose diocese is located the house to which the religious belongs. For validity the decree must indicate the right of the person dismissed to have recourse to the competent authority within ten days of receiving notification of the decree. The recourse has a suspensive effect.’

– actually Tim, SSPX does not have canonical/jurdical status in the Church. It is not even an association of the faithful. Their situation needs to be regularised.

“In other words their conscience is telling them that documents like Dignitatis Humanae are in error and that no one has the authority to compel them to act against their conscience.”

I’m afraid you’re missing the point of their argument. They are not claiming that they don’t like DH because it’s against their conscience, and that’s why they’re objecting. They’re claiming that it violates revealed Truth so they can’t follow. It’s akin to you saying, “I don’t accept there is a tree there.” Well, there is a tree or there is not a tree, but it has nothing to do with your personal opinion. Reason requires us to assent to external reality, to bend our mind to the tree’s existence, so to speak. Similarly, DH is either in continuity with the perennial teaching of the Church (a la Quanta Cura) or it is not. Your opinion, my opinion, any of our desires, etc. simply don’t matter. What matters is our correspondence to the revealed Truth of our Faith.

That’s not to say that conscience doesn’t apply, but the SSPX would argue that the traditional understanding of obligation towards a conscience (only a formed conscience is to be obliged) would stand. Too often today, we use conscience to mean feeling, which is not at all what the scholastics meant.

“So many years advocating and promoting disobedience… and finally, they realize disobedience is bad! How ironic!”

“Oh what bitter irony and hypocrisy”

These, Mr. Ferguson, strike one as less than charitable. And if we’re discussing that truth = charity, which of course it does, then does that not make the SSPX charitable when they point out that Assisi I, II, and III are harmful to souls, that it is not, in fact a good thing for a Pontiff to visit synagogues without preaching Christ Jesus, that a pope kissing the Koran does not fulfill the mission to Confirm his brethren in the Faith, that having vespers with pretend “bishops” from the Anglican community confuses the faithful and in fact confirms heretics and schismatics in their positions?

I think, in these cases, especially given the tone used by the SSPX, it does. The comments in this thread lack the clarity and focus that charity requires. And yet, it is many of these same commentators who decry the SSPX for pointing out these signs of the times.

Well, no not entirely. It is the Pope who is the guarantor of the Faith and the revealed deposit of Truth, yes. And it is the Pope’s job to uphold and confirm that Faith, but what if he doesn’t? DH either reconciles with Quanta Cura or it doesn’t. Heck, it seems clear that Pope John Paul II and Pope Paul VI both taught/legislated as if the Traditional Mass were abrogated, and yet Pope Benedict XVI tells us it never was. Were they right before and he right now?

Apart from the exercise of the solemn magisterium defined by Vatican I, it is possible for Popes to err (a la Peter and Jewish Dietary Law, or Pope John XXII and the Beatific Vision)

@Sarto, I’m not missing the point of their argument and I never suggested what you said I did regarding their reasons for opposing DH. They don’t like DH because they claim that the clause regarding freedom of conscience in their opinion contradicts previous teaching. The Popes have said that it does not contradict and that it can be interpreted in light of tradition. DH also says as much in the paragraph preceding the one in contention.

As you said Similarly, DH is either in continuity with the perennial teaching of the Church (a la Quanta Cura) or it is not.And who is the authority to make that decision? You, me, the SSPX, the Popes?

Quote: “actually Tim, SSPX does not have canonical/jurdical status in the Church. It is not even an association of the faithful. Their situation needs to be regularised.”

It HAS been regularized ever since the foundation of the FSSP in 1988. That group was composed of the part of the SSPX who remained faithful to Roman discipline after the consecration of bishops without a pontifical mandate. The canonists here can tell you what the penalty for that crime is.

His Holiness should direct that all future inquiries from the SSPX members about regularizing their condition should be directed to the superior of the FSSP. Then decisions can be made as to which of them are able to “sentire cum ecclesia” to become members of the FSSP.

The “corporate unity” game with the SSPX has about as much chance of success as the unity game with the Anglicans. I say that in sadness, without anger or judgment.

I’m just as happy to see +Williamson out. I don’t understand why he was made a Bishop in the first place. (FWIW, I was 4 when the consecrations happened and didn’t know anything about pre-VII anything until almost the end of college.)

+Williamson can lead the SSPX-SO and be as irrelevant as the SSPV, as far as I’m concerned. While the other 2 Bishops aren’t keen on Rome, either, they at least will obey their Superior General, I believe, and +Fellay does seem to truly desire in his heart to be united to his Pontiff, but unwilling to just reunite on his own and leave behind everyone else, which is, IMHO, understandable.

Anyway, praying this is ultimately a positive step for more souls than not. ^_^

Am I correct in commenting on what a monumental step this is? My understanding is that the SSPX has kept Williamson “in the fold” partly due to the fact that they only have a certain number of Bishops, and that a death or expulsion would seal their ultimate fate vis-a-vis any alleged Apostolic Succession. I cannot believe that Fellay does not understand that they cannot do this unless the Society has somewhere to “go”. They cannot reconcile or survive as independent without Williamson, without Williamson they can only reconcile. So they must be reconciling, no?

I too have heard +Williamson preach. I was very impressed and he said nothing at that time about which, I could disagree. It seems to me that what is most distressing are his public comments regarding the Holocaust. Any fair-minded person would have to disagree with him regarding the historical accuracy of the Holocaust and his rejection of it. He does have a definite way with him in rubbing up people the wrong way and saying the wrong thing. He certainly is most combative in his ways and has drawn down scorn upon the SSPX as a whole, which is hardly to his credit.
Maybe his dismissal from the Society was a painful neccessity. It may be a blessing in disguise.

I worked for many years with a Holocaust survivor. I saw the identification papers issued to him by the predecessor of the CIA right after he was liberated from his concentration camp, which he referred to as the “Buchenwald Preparatory Academy”. His favorite movie was “Patton”, because it always had “the right ending”. If you had the privilege of eating a meal with him in a restaurant, he would tell you what it was like to go to bed at night in a camp surrounded by tanks with swastikas on them, their guns pointing inward, and to wake up one morning surrounded by tanks with stars on them, their guns pointing outward.

My colleague was a Jew who would enter a Catholic Church and light a votive candle to the Virgin Mary, because, “You cannot go wrong with a good Jewish mother”.

It would be most interesting to me to know how much of the Society’s dissent from Rome’s authority and whatnot have come from whom.

I mean that in this sense: We’ve noticed on this blog that, in his comments, Bishop Fellay typically sounds as though he still expects Rome to “come to Jesus” in it’s intentions. Considering that he’s the Superior General of the Order, excuse me, Society, though, his statements will have a certain political element to them. He must satisfy both the hard-line factions within his flock AND the more moderate views. At the same time, Bishop Williamson has been noticeably unwilling to change his tune at all.
I can’t help but wonder if Bishop Fellay has taken time in reconciling with Rome in no small part to keep Bishop Williamson and his faction..in the fold.

It’ll be interesting to see if Bishop Fellay and the rest of SSPX start working more vigorously to reconcile with Benedict. Seems a plausible thing to me, anyway.

I must say though, it’s a rather sad thing to have to expel Williamson. He DOES have a soul to save too, after all. Sad thing that.
I will say this though: At least Fellay appears to have the will to make such a thing happen. I could wish that some of our regularized bishops would be so inclined.

“It (SSPX) HAS been regularized ever since the foundation of the FSSP in 1988.”

Fr Augustine, this statement strikes me as being..problematic. Essentially, you would seem to declare that SSPX would simply be incorporated into FSSP. I think it comparatively unlikely that such an approach would necessarily work at present. Though it’s true enough that FSSP essentially reunited with Rome after separating from SSPX, it’s ALSO true that the two groups have been distinctly not the same group for close to a quarter century now. Even if they think in similar ways, I have to think they don’t agree with each other even with regard to who would be in charge. ..And let’s face it, I don’t see Bishop Fellay surrendering his authority as Superior General without complaint.

I guess it could be made to happen if SSPX continues efforts to reconcile with Rome and FSSP would be willing. I don’t know though. It might be a match made in Purgatory, at best.

Unbelievably ironic quote from Archbishop Lefebvre!!
I totally agree with Fr K on this one- it is almost funny, if it weren’t so tragic, that the SSPX are repeating history on a smaller scale (except that there is no real authority here).
And Bishop Williamson? I have no time for him. Personally I see signs of psychopathy in the man- he is clearly a head case, probably a megalomaniac in his own little world, there are signs of pathological narcissism there too.
I am especially intolerant of his holocaust stance, my father-in-law having spent part of the war in Belsen where his parents starved to death. We shouldn’t forget that in Germany (and other places in Europe?) his comments were a serious criminal offence. And quite rightly too.

Sarto says:
I’m afraid you’re missing the point of their argument. They are not claiming that they don’t like DH because it’s against their conscience, and that’s why they’re objecting. They’re claiming that it violates revealed Truth so they can’t follow. It’s akin to you saying, “I don’t accept there is a tree there.” Well, there is a tree or there is not a tree, but it has nothing to do with your personal opinion. Reason requires us to assent to external reality, to bend our mind to the tree’s existence, so to speak. Similarly, DH is either in continuity with the perennial teaching of the Church (a la Quanta Cura) or it is not. Your opinion, my opinion, any of our desires, etc. simply don’t matter. What matters is our correspondence to the revealed Truth of our Faith.

You’ve unwittingly shown the flaw in the SSPX interpretation.

It’s not a matter that the perennial teaching says A, but DH says that A is not true. Rather, it’s that DH can be interpreted in two different ways: That A is still true, but that A is no longer true. That DH admits of two different, even opposing, interpretations (which Rome has acknowledged) means that it is a flawed document. It doesn’t, however, mean that DH contradicts perennial teaching.

@Rachel K says: “Personally I see signs of psychopathy in the man- he is clearly a head case, probably a megalomaniac in his own little world, there are signs of pathological narcissism there too”.

Perhaps, and paradoxically that gives me hope that God will be merciful to him come his personal judgment should he die unreconciled to the Catholic Church. But even then no one will probably ever know whether he showed signs of repentance in his last few seconds on earth. Only God knows the secrets of the heart.

The Church is going through her “Passion”. These are crazy times and along with that go crazy actions. I have no doubt that Bishop Williamson loves the Catholic Faith – he converted from Anglicanism in 1971. He is obviously upset about what has happened in regard to the dilution and protestantisation of the Catholic Faith. I am very grateful to the SSPX for teaching me the truths of the Catholic Faith via videos I came across on Youtube many years ago. I grew up in Belgium (think Rhine flows into the Tiber) and I spent weeks watching them, amazed about what I was hearing – this was my Faith and I was finally being taught it. I don’t attend their Chapels because of the regularisation issue but will always be indebted to them – my children have been properly catechised and will themselves be able to pass on the truths of the Catholic Faith in whatever vocation God calls them to.

I pray for the SSPX and try and remember that Satan may win some battles, but he lost the war a long time ago. And that is the reason for our Hope.

One other comment: Although jurisdiction is here used within the context of law, it and all canon law must be interpreted according to Salus animarum, which is a theological concept. (In fact, all canon law is a manifestation of theology, and any holes in the present code exist because of flawed theology that came out of Vat II)

Salus animarum, IMHO, demands a generous (i.e., wide rather than narrow) application of c.144. Further, any narrow application raises questions about the validity of Absolution gives by Orthodox priests (even though not exactly the same situation).

I just tried to log in again using a different browser instead of the one I used last time and it seemed to cause problems so I have reverted to my old browser and this one is accepted.
The whole matter of “ecclesia supplet” has been used by the SSPX for years. I have refused to go to confession to an SSPX priest because I do not accept this arguement. There is indeed a requirement that any priest hearing confession must be in good standing with the Local Ordinary and have his permission to hear confessions. No SSPX priest that I know of has this permission and therefore I judge that he has no permission to hear confession anywhere, except in the case of proximity of death, when any priest, in good standing or not, is indeed empowered to grant absolution “ecclesia supplet”. The point about Orthodox priests is an interesting one. Surely the same prohibition applies to them also! None of them has permission from the local Ordinary to administer Reconciliation. Yet they do, just as the SSPX do also. I leave this in the hands of God and somehow feel that the Divine Mercy may well apply in such circumstances.

JARay says:
There is indeed a requirement that any priest hearing confession must be in good standing with the Local Ordinary and have his permission to hear confessions. No SSPX priest that I know of has this permission and therefore I judge that he has no permission to hear confession anywhere, except in the case of proximity of death, when any priest, in good standing or not, is indeed empowered to grant absolution “ecclesia supplet”.

1. Any priest, even laicized, can validly grant absolution when someone is in danger of death, but it is not a matter of Ecclesia supplet. It is explicily granted by the Pope himself in canon law (c 976)

2. The question is not whether the SSPX has faculties given by proper delegation. I don’t know anyone who thinks that they do. Rather, it is whether Ecclesia supplet applies to their situation. I think it is POSSIBLE that it does.

I’d say Fr. Thompson is spot on, save one issue: the FSSP would hardly become a more pleasant place if large numbers of the SSPX would turn to it. In such a process, one can make an informed, balanced judgement only if numbers are low. If there are a lot of people involved, it inevitably becomes a checklist, and – sadly – many in the SSPX have been separated from Rome for so long that there is lots of entrenched bitterness, and they would fall through the cracks.

BXVI wouldn’t be doing the FSSP any favors if that approach were chosen – which may very well be a reason why he doesn’t.

As for the original topic: about bloody time – Williamson is a lunatic.

We shouldn’t forget that in Germany his comments were a serious criminal offence.

It is considered a very heinous thing which closes you out for all your life from decent society; probably for the same reason that Catholics feel so much more upset with heresy or quasi-heresy than with mere sin.

Also, any criminal offence justly established is, in a sense, serious.

But that said, what you say is not true. By any definition of “serious criminal offence” (e. g. “= felony”, but also in wider definitions), Holocaust denial is not among them. It is punished with precisely the same frame of possible punishments as unqualified theft.

@JA Ray: Actually, Bp. Carraro of Verona, Italy, granted the SSPX priest in his diocese faculties (source), and SSPX priests do individually request their ordinaries to explicitly grant them faculties so they don’t have to rely on Ecclesia supplet.

We must remember: Bp. Williamson is still an un-excommunicated, validly ordained, non-heretical Catholic bishop.

Also, for all those who think the SSPX has a schismatic mentality and has not been trying very hard to regularize its situation in the Church, Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican is an excellent free-source.

Am I hearing that there are 2 other ways for the SSPX to regularize itself, besides talks with Rome and the Holy Father?

1. Fr. Augustine Thompson O.P. says: 24 October 2012 at 7:01 pm “It (SSPX) HAS been regularized ever since the foundation of the FSSP in 1988.”

I’m taking that to mean that the SSPX could regularize itself by joining the FSSP, and if that is the meaning, it provides an interesting frame of reference and a simple way for individual priests and individual SSPXers to regularize themselves with Rome, if not the whole kit and kaboodle of the SSPX. The latter as suggested above may not be wise in view of all of the work already done .

2. Alan Aversa says: 26 October 2012 at 1:36 pm @JA Ray: Actually, Bp. Carraro of Verona, Italy, granted the SSPX priest in his diocese faculties (source), and SSPX priests do individually request their ordinaries to explicitly grant them faculties so they don’t have to rely on Ecclesia supplet.

I’m taking that to mean that an individual SSPX priest can regularize himself by asking the Bishop of the Diocese where his SSPX Chapel resides for faculties to hear confessions, and etc., and if granted, that seems to be a simple remedy to regularization for himself and his parishioners.

3. BUT…how would the seminaries, convents and schools be regularized?

4. How, would the 3 Bishops be regularized? Would they have to agree to regularize as priests and forgo their status as Bishops? Perhaps, in the hope that, God willing, the Holy Fr. would appoint them as Bishops at sometime in the future?

God…please bring the SSPXers back into regularization with Rome according to your good, holy, perfect, and pleasing will.

Search Fr. Z’s Blog

Search for:

BACK TO SCHOOL SHOPPING? Please, come here first!

Enter Amazon through my search box and I will get a small percentage of what you spend. (Pssst - Can't see the search box? Turn off your "ad-blocker" for this site!)Amazon.com WidgetsPS: I added Amazon Search Boxes for the UK and for Canada at the bottom of the blog page. Copy and paste titles I mention into those boxes and - BAZINGA! - results appear as if by magic.
Kindle? HERE

“This blog is like a fusion of the Baroque ‘salon’ with its well-tuned harpsichord around which polite society gathered for entertainment and edification and, on the other hand, a Wild West “saloon” with its out-of-tune piano and swinging doors, where everyone has a gun and something to say. Nevertheless, we try to point our discussions back to what it is to be Catholic in this increasingly difficult age, to love God, and how to get to heaven.” – Fr. Z

Some words of wisdom…

The more vigorously the primacy was displayed, the more the question came up about the extent and and limits of [papal] authority, which of course, as such, had never been considered. After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West. In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope's authority is bound to the Tradition of faith. … The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition.

CLICK and say your Daily Offering!

"We as Catholics have not properly combated (the culture) because we have not been taught our Catholic Faith, especially in the depth needed to address these grave evils of our time. This is a failure of catechesis both of children and young people that has been going on for fifty years. It is being addressed, but it needs much more radical attention... What has also contributed greatly to the situation is an exaltation of the virtue of tolerance which is falsely seen as the virtue which governs all other virtues. In other words, we should tolerate other people in their immoral actions to the extent that we seem also to accept the moral wrong. Tolerance is a virtue, but it is certainly not the principal virtue; the principal virtue is charity... Charity means speaking the truth. I have encountered it (not speaking the truth) many times myself as a priest and bishop. It is something we simply need to address. There is far too much silence — people do not want to talk about it because the topic is not 'politically correct.' But we cannot be silent any longer."

Help Monks in Wyoming (coffee) and Norcia (beer)!

出る杭は打たれ!

Without you, there is no blog.

There is a subscription form at the bottom of this page!

Aedificantium enim unusquisque gladio erat accinctus.

- Nehemiah 4:18

"Where priest and people together face the same way, what we have is a cosmic orientation and also in interpretation of the Eucharist in terms of resurrection and trinitarian theology. Hence it is also an interpretation in terms of parousia, a theology of hope, in which every Mass is an approach to the return of Christ."

"In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. ... If all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians." CDF 2003

One of the most dangerous errors is that civilization is automatically bound to increase and spread. The lesson of history is the opposite; civilization is a rarity, attained with difficulty and easily lost. The normal state of humanity is barbarism, just as the normal surface of the planet is salt water. Land looms large in our imagination and civilization in history books, only because sea and savagery are to us less interesting.
— C. S. Lewis

Ham Radio Stuff

Fr. Z - W9FRZ - OFFQRV on: 00m 00000
Check Echolink WB0YLE-R - OFF

For contemplation…

"One of the few things in life you can be absolutely sure about is that, if Management tells you it doesn't like your Tone, you are getting something right."

"Latin is a precise, essential language. It will be abandoned, not because it is unsuitable for the new requirements of progress, but because the new men will not be suitable for it. When the age of demagogues and charlatans begins, a language like Latin will no longer be useful, and any oaf will be able to give a speech in public and talk in such a way that he will not be kicked off the stage. The secret to this will consist in the fact that, by making use of words that are general, elusive, and sound good, he will be able to speak for an hour without saying anything. With Latin, this is impossible."

- - Giovanni Guareschi

Support them with prayer and fasting.

Click for Car Magnets

Help the Sisters. They have a building project. Get great soap (gifts, etc.) while helping REAL nuns!

Some OBLIGATORY reading…

Leave Voice Mail for Fr. Z

Nota bene: I do not answer these numbers or this Skype address. You won't get me "live". I check for messages regularly.

WDTPRS

020 8133 4535

651-447-6265

Let us pray…

Grant unto thy Church, we beseech
Thee, O merciful God, that She, being
gathered together by the Holy Ghost, may
be in no wise troubled by attack from her
foes.
O God, who by sin art offended and by
penance pacified, mercifully regard the
prayers of Thy people making supplication
unto Thee,and turn away the scourges of
Thine anger which we deserve for our sins.
Almighty and Everlasting God, in
whose Hand are the power and the
government of every realm: look down upon
and help the Christian people that the heathen
nations who trust in the fierceness of their
own might may be crushed by the power of
thine Arm. Through our Lord Jesus Christ,
Thy Son, who liveth and reigneth with Thee
in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world
without end. R. Amen.

Check out the Cardinal Newman Society feed!

Yes, Fr. Z is taking ads…

A great hymnal…

Mystic Monk Coffee also has TEA!

Because it matters what children read…

I carry one of these super-strong rosaries in my spare mag pouch! The Swiss Guards have them too!

The Swiss Guard have these rosaries!For the story clickHERE and HERE (esp. 18:00)

Because you don’t know when you are going to need to move fast or get along without the supermarket…

My wish lists

Main Wishlist Kindle WishlistAudio WishlistHam Radio ListNEW

Food For Thought

“The legalization of the termination of pregnancy is none other than the authorization given to an adult, with the approval of an established law, to take the lives of children yet unborn and thus incapable of defending themselves. It is difficult to imagine a more unjust situation, and it is very difficult to speak of obsession in a matter such as this, where we are dealing with a fundamental imperative of every good conscience — the defense of the right to life of an innocent and defenseless human being.”

For your consideration…

"One of the most dangerous errors is that civilization is automatically bound to increase and spread. The lesson of history is the opposite; civilization is a rarity, attained with difficulty and easily lost. The normal state of humanity is barbarism, just as the normal surface of the planet is salt water. Land looms large in our imagination and civilization in history books, only because sea and savagery are to us less interesting."

- C.S. Lewis

More food for thought:

“I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history.”

Francis Card. George

Fr. Z’s stuff is everywhere

Please follow me on Twitter!

Help support Fr. Z’s Gospel of Life work at no cost to you. Do you need a Real Estate Agent? Calling these people is the FIRST thing you should do!

They find you a pro-life agent in your area who commits to giving a portion of the fee to a pro-life group!

"It will never be known what acts of cowardice have been committed for fear of not looking sufficiently progressive."

Charles Pierre PéguyNotre Patrie, 1905

"If I ought to write the truth, I am of the mind that I ought to flee all meetings of bishops, because I have never seen any happy or satisfactory outcome to any council, nor one that has deterred evils more than it has occasioned their acceptance and growth."

St. Gregory Nazianzus
ep. 131 - AD 382

“We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women. If we do not reach that time, then our children and grandchildren will reach it, and they will sell your sons as slaves at the slave market.”

To set up a recurring, monthly donation via PAYPAL (even a small one) go to the bottom of this blog and look for the drop down menu! If you prefer, I also have a clearXchange account. Do you want yet another alternative to PayPal? I have set up an account with
CONTINUE TO GIVE
Get a link to donate via CONTINUE TO GIVE using your smart phone.
SEND MESSAGE:
4827563
TO:
715-803-4772
They take a larger percent taste, but they are an alternative.

I remember benefactors in my prayers and periodically say Mass for your intention.

This catechism helped to bring Fr. Z into the Catholic Church!

Be a “Zed-Head”!

Fathers, you don’t know who might show up! It could be a “big fish” of one sort or other…

And... GO TO CONFESSION!

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

What people say…

"Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, a traditionalist blogger who has never shied from picking fights with priests, bishops or cardinals when liturgical abuses are concerned."

- Kractivism

"Father John Zuhlsdorf is a crank"
"Father Zuhlsdorf drives me crazy"
"the hate-filled Father John Zuhlsford" [sic]
"Father John Zuhlsdorf, the right wing priest who has a penchant for referring to NCR as the 'fishwrap'"

- Michael Sean Winters

"Fr Z is a true phenomenon of the information age: a power blogger and a priest."

- Anna Arco

“Given that Rorate Coeli and Shea are mad at Fr. Z, I think it proves Fr. Z knows what he is doing and he is right.”

- Comment

"Let me be clear. Fr. Z is a shock jock, mostly. His readership is vast and touchy. They like to be provoked and react with speed and fury."

- Sam Rocha

"Father Z’s Blog is a bright star on a cloudy night."

- Comment

"A cross between Kung Fu Panda and Wolverine."

- Anonymous

Fr. Z is officially a hybrid of Gandalf and Obi-Wan XD

- Comment

Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, a scrappy blogger popular with the Catholic right.

Support Military Chaplains!

Click to donate

Food For Thought

“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites. . . . Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”

Canadian Amazon Search Box

More stuff…

Archives

ENTRY CALENDAR

Do you use my blog often? Is it helpful to you?

If so, please consider subscribing to send a monthly donation. That way I have steady income I can plan on, and you wind up regularly on my list of benefactors for whom I pray and for whom I periodically say Holy Mass.

Some options

Admin Stuff

The opinions expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect the positions of any of the Catholic Church's entities with which I am involved. They are my own. Opinions expressed by commentators in the comments belong to the commentators.